Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Spaztecs

100-year-old Holocaust survivor compares Trump to Hitler

Recommended Posts

Also, Federalist 29 makes it clear the the militia (the prefatory clause btw),  was that the FEDERAL government could call on the militias overseen by the state should the standing AMRY become a threat.  

You have no clue what you are talking about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Also, Federalist 29 makes it clear the the militia (the prefatory clause) was that the FEDERAL government could call on the militias overseen by the state should the standing AMRY become a threat.  

You have no clue what you are talking about.

 

I get the militia could be called upon but again the threat the constitution protects is s threat from a federal government. A threat you deem not to exist.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sactowndog said:

I get the militia could be called upon but again the threat the constitution protects is s threat from a federal government. A threat you deem not to exist.   

Not according to the federalist papers that you cite or any of the three 2A decisions written by the SCOTUS this century.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AztecSU said:

It's funny because you and Los Aztecas actually seem to be saying the real reason this can't happen is this isn't 1930's Germany....not that Trump would for sure not be as bad...and I agree with that but some of us have a hard time being honest that we don't see Trump stopping himself....

Are you suggesting that that without the U.S. having the same circumstances as 1930's Germany, that you (and others) believe that Trump wouldn't be able to stop himself from becoming Hitler? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Lol,

*fears an authoritarian fascist take over.

*want's to take away guns to prevent it

Can't make this up.

 

Sadly, some people are cheering for authoritarianism.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

One, I do not speak for all or even many Libertarians, most on this board do find Trump to be an existential threat.

The Second Amendment is paramount for many reasons.  The SCOTUS has decided in three cases this century that have established the second amendment as an individual right and fear of tyranny was not the crux nor mentioned in any reasoning.

From the Majority opinion in Heller

"The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment."

See above.  

 

2 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Also, Federalist 29 makes it clear the the militia (the prefatory clause) was that the FEDERAL government could call on the militias overseen by the state should the standing AMRY become a threat.  

You have no clue what you are talking about.

 


@halfmanhalfbronco tells @sactowndog”night night.” 

200.gif

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Also @sactowndog thanks, @mugtang, @BSUTOP25 and I were just talking about how normalizing a good old fashioned gun debate would be.

Anybody change their opinion since the last one?

Just so we are clear.  I’m not opposed to eliminating guns.   I do think the threat of authoritarianism from the right is real.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I already did.  I cited the majority in Heller and pointed out the purpose of Federalist 29.

 

So just parsing what you posted.....

"The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people.
 

this so far states you don’t have to be in the military to own a gun and the highlighted point speaks to the intent of the Amendment being state sponsored force such as found in an authoritarian state  ( right or left)

 

Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment."

this speaks more to your point of protection which is fine as an ancillary purpose but one could argue only a certain class of weapon was fine for home protection (as referenced above) if the need for protection against authoritarianism was no longer needed (your supposition).  A supposition with which I strongly disagree.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

 

 

this speaks more to your point of protection which is fine as an ancillary purpose but one could argue only a certain class of weapon was fine for home protection (as referenced above) if the need for protection against authoritarianism was no longer needed (your supposition).  A supposition with which I strongly disagree.   

 

Not according to Federalist 29 ". Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble ".  In the context of 29 it must be assumed this was meant that the populace had access to weaponry comparable to the military 29 stated the Federal Govt had the right to levy militia force against.




If you are wondering why I can respond so much faster than you, it is because I know this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The National Weather Service has issued Severe Hijacked Thread Warning for your vicinity.  Please take shelter immediately.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Not according to Federalist 29 ". Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble ".  In the context of 29 it must be assumed this was meant that the populace had access to weaponry comparable to the military 29 stated the Federal Govt had the right to levy militia force against.




If you are wondering why I can respond so much faster than you, it is because I know this.

 

 

Yes the population had access to weaponry comparable to the military because the founders worried about the threat of a federal Despot!

The very threat you wrongly claim is now longer possible.  Federalist 29 underscores the point of the 2nd Amendments requirement to combat authoritarianism.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

 

The fact is many libertarian's have proven they are only left wing libertarians but are fully on board with allowing right wing authoritarianism,   It is a stance that will harm the growth of the party for years.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Yes the population had access to weaponry comparable to the military because the founders worried about the threat of a federal Despot!

The very threat you wrongly claim is now longer possible.  Federalist 29 underscores the point of the 2nd Amendments requirement to combat authoritarianism.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

 

The fact is many libertarian's have proven they are only left wing libertarians but are fully on board with allowing right wing authoritarianism,   It is a stance that will harm the growth of the party for years.

 

 

Federalist 29 makes point that the militia is under constant Federal influence.

You are grasping and seem desperate.  No libertarians are on board with right wing authoritarianism.  Me laughing at you thinking we on the verge is not the same thing.

You cite the federalist papers which only makes mention of 2A in passing to clarify a secondary clause years later (published after 37) and then can not even come to grips with what it says.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

Sadly, some people are cheering for authoritarianism.

 

 

Keith has not only has gone off the deep end, he jumped in with no water in the pool.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Federalist 29 makes point that the militia is under constant Federal influence.

You are grasping and seem desperate.  No libertarians are on board with right wing authoritarianism.  Me laughing at you thinking we on the verge is not the same thing.

You cite the federalist papers which only makes mention of 2A in passing to clarify a secondary clause years later (published after 37) and then can not even come to grips with what it says.

 

 

Federalist 29 makes no mention of self defense.   While I am happy to listen to Scalia’s scholarship on other writings it is clear the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment as discussed in 29 is defense against a despot.  A defense you strangely assert is no longer needed.  

I brought up the federalist papers because they are a primary source of the founders thoughts in drafting the constitution. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sactowndog said:

Federalist 29 makes no mention of self defense.   While I am happy to listen to Scalia’s scholarship on other writings it is clear the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment as discussed in 29 is defense against a despot.  A defense you strangely assert is no longer needed.  

I brought up the federalist papers because they are a primary source of the founders thoughts in drafting the constitution. 

 

You said 29 is about defense from the Federal government. It is not.  It clearly states that militias are to have federal oversight but be ran by the states for the purpose of the federal government being able to call on them to defend against the military if needed.  Basically it is insurance for the Federal government or against neighboring states.   It also only address the prefatory clause of the amendment.  Shall not be infringed can not be more evident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...